alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of NYFIX,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ending  March 31,  2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Mark R. Hahn,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ Mark R. Hahn
--------------------------
Mark R. Hahn
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```
## **Exhibit32.1**

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer**

**of Tipperary Corporation  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

 

                In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tipperary Corporation (the “*Company*”) for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “*Report*”), I, David L. Bradshaw, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  David L. Bradshaw |
|--------|------------------------|
|   | Name:                  | David L. Bradshaw |
|   | Title:                 | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:                  | November 15, 2004 |
|   |                   |   |

 

 

----
No. 39005.

#### Protest 927966-G of Castle & Overton, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Due to the fact that the covering on the bales was of old second-hand burlap which was fragile and easily torn, it appeared that on account of frequent handling and rough treatment some of the bales had become torn by hooks and some of the letters in the marking were dim but that the word “Spain” was clearly legible on all of the bales except one. On the authority of Abstract 32337, *Kraft*v. *United States*(22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) and *Givaudan*v. *United Stales*(id. 115, T. D. 47104) the protest was sustained as to 35 of the bales. It was overruled as to one bale from which the marking had been removed.
(Reap. Dec. 9268)

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 948606, etc.

(Decided December 15, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel have stipulated and agreed in these cases as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the entered unit values and that the issues involved are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *Ross Products Inc. v. United States,*Reappraisement Decision 9225.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the foreign market value was no higher for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof may be submitted on this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c), as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value, with respect to the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of this decision, is the entered unit values.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Explanatory Comment

Current Rule 211, if read literally, confers on a party the right to argue any motion 

before the trial court. However, the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court have 

both held that any right to oral argument conferred by Rule 211 is only a qualified right 

subject to judicial discretion. See Gerace v. Holmes Protection of Philadelphia, 516 

A.2d 354 (Pa. Super. 1986); City of Philadelphia v. Kenny, 369 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1977). To remedy any confusion between the text of the rule and actual practice 

supported by appellate precedent, Rule 211 has been amended to provide that a party

has the right to request oral argument, and gives discretion to the trial court to require 

oral argument, whether requested or not, or to dispose of any motion without oral 

argument. 

By the Civil Procedural

Rules Committee

Peter J. Hoffman

Chair
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016
(the Report) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael S. Gross, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the
best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/S/    MICHAEL S. GROSSName:

Michael S. GrossDate:

February 22, 2017
----

(2004/C 84 E/0360)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0134/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Collapse of Parmalat and insufficient checks by Bankitalia

The financial collapse of the Italian Parmalat group highlighted a serious lack of checks by Bankitalia regarding the Parmalat group's relations with the Italian banking system. The stock market watchdog, Consob, expressed its disappointment at being denied access by the Italian central bank to data held by Bankitalia's risks bureau on Parmalat's position.

Will the Commission adopt a clear position regarding the tasks that still need to be carried out, uniformly, by the central banks of Member States?

Does not the Commission feel that there is a need to set up truly independent authorities in each Member State to guarantee and protect the rights of savers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission notes that a criminal investigation by the Italian Courts to assess responsibilities in the failure of the Parmalat group is still ongoing. Moreover, the discussions in Italy on whether, and to what extent, the activity of Banca d'Italia had an impact on the efficiency of the controls are still continuing. Therefore, the Commission considers it premature and inappropriate to express a view on this specific case.

On a broader perspective, it is the responsibility of Member States to decide how the supervision of banks, other financial institutions and listed companies should be organised to achieve the objective of efficient prudent supervision, market integrity and transparency, necessary to ensure the protection of savers, investors and the stability of financial system, on the basis of the principles and provisions laid down in the EU Banking Directives (1) and the EU securities, accounting and audit directives and regulations. These principles include provisions on co-operation and exchange of information between supervisory authorities as well as the obligation of professional secrecy in supervision.

----

(1)  Directive 2000/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, OJ L 126, 26.5.2000.

----
Case: 2:12-cv-00177-EAS-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/04/12 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T14:52:04-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:12-cr-221

Christopher R. Layman, Jr. 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 23) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: March 12, 2013 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:12-cr-00221-JLG-TPK Doc #: 25 Filed: 03/12/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 40339.

#### Protests 904100-G, etc., of Otis McAllister & Co. et al. (Portland, etc.).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 08**  **- 8254** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CEPHUS PIERCE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of S outh Carolina , at Florence
. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. ( 4:03

- cr - 00474

- CWH

- 24 )

Submitted : June 8, 2010 Decided: June 22 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Cephu s Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cephus Pierce seeks to appeal the distr ict court ’ s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582 (200 6 ). In criminal cases decided before December 1, 2009 , the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b )(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and Rule 4(b)(1)(A) appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the dis trict court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United
States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order denying the motion for reduction of sentence on Se ptember 23, 2008 . The notice of appeal was filed on October 14, 2008
. We remanded to the district court to determine if Pierce made a showing of good cause or excusable neglect to warrant an extension of the appeal period. The district court held that a n extension was not warranted. Because Pierce failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Brian Lake Balderson, :

Plaintiff : Civil Action 2:12-cv-00235

v. : Judge Smith

Bradley Eller, et al., : Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendants

:

Report and Recommendation

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on the State of Ohio and defendant

Bradley Eller’s November 29, 2012 motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for plaintiff’s want of prosecution (doc. 39). The State

of Ohio also maintains that Dr. Weidman and Dr. Williams should be dismissed from

this action pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civil. P. for plaintiff's failure to obtain

service on them.

Plaintiff Balderson has not responded to defendant’s motion to dismiss, nor has

he provided the Court with his current mailing address. Accordingly, the Magistrate

Judge RECOMMENDS that the State of Ohio and defendant Bradley Eller’s November

29, 2012 motion to dismiss (doc. 39) be GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED for

plaintiff's want of prosecution. Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. See, Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370

U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). S.D. Ohio Civil Rule 55.1(c). The Magistrate Judge FURTHER

RECOMMENDS that Dr. Weidman and Dr. Williams be DISMISSED without prejudice

1

Case: 2:12-cv-00235-GCS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 02/06/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
from this action pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civil. P. for plaintiff's failure to obtain

service on them.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the

Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof

in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District

Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);

United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,

380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not

raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00235-GCS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 02/06/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2008243EN.01002301.xml

| 24.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/23

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS EPSO/AST/69/08 AND EPSO/AST/70/08

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

AND

(2008/C 243/06)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| | EPSO/AST/69/08

  to recruit assistants (AST 1) in the field of audiovisual/multimedia (conference operators)
  and |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AST/69/08

EPSO/AST/69/08

to recruit assistants (AST 1) in the field of audiovisual/multimedia (conference operators)

and

| | EPSO/AST/70/08

  to recruit assistants (AST 3) in the field of audiovisual/multimedia (conference technicians/multimedia technicians). |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AST/70/08

EPSO/AST/70/08

to recruit assistants (AST 3) in the field of audiovisual/multimedia (conference technicians/multimedia technicians).

The competition notices are published in Official Journal C 243 A of 24 September 2008 in English, French and German only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Trinity. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Daniel R. Bartholomew |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Daniel R. Bartholomew     |
| Chief Financial Officer   |
| August 9, 2012            |
Robert D. Lewis, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Case No. 2:12-cv-490 

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael H. Watson 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

On September 25, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Kemp, to whom 

this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(8) and General Order 

14-01 for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division, filed a Report and 

Recommendation ("R&R") concerning the disposition of Robert D. Lewis's 

("Plaintiff') Motion for Attorney Fees in this Social Security case. ECF No. 19. 

Judge Kemp determined that Plaintiff was entitled to fees, but, noting flaws in the 

calculation of the hourly rates, ordered the parties to agree on the rates reflected 

in the R&R or to submit additional documentation. /d. In response, Plaintiff 

stipulated to the rates set forth in the R&R and waived any opportunity to 

supplement documentation. ECF No. 20. Defendant has not responded. 

Thereafter, on October 14, 2014, Judge Kemp issued another R&R 

recommending granting Plaintiffs motion for fees in substantial part as outlined in 

his initial R&R. ECF No. 21. Judge Kemp notified the parties of their right to file 

objections to the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ). R&R 2, ECF No. 21. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00490-MHW-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 10/15/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Judge Kemp further specifically advised the parties that the failure to object to 

the R&R within fourteen days would result in a waiver of both the right to de novo 

review by the District Judge and the right to appeal the decision of the District 

Court adopting the R&R. /d. 

On October 14 and 15, 2014, Defendant and Plaintiff, respectively, filed 

responses indicating they have no objections to the R&R. ECF Nos. 22 & 23. 

Accordingly, the R&R, ECF No. 19, is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff's motion for 

attorney fees, ECF No. 12, is granted to the extent outlined in the R&R, ECF No. 

21. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

M'iCHAELH:WATSON, 

~lfl/~ JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 2:12-cv-00490-MHW-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 10/15/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(Reap. Dec. 9330)

#### F. L. Kraemer *& Co. v.*United States

Entry Nos. 812114; 824397; 797112.

(Decided February 24, 1959)

*Brooks & Brooks (Thomas J. McKenna*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Beorge Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been consolidated and submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto that the submission in the above-entitled case be set aside in order to amplify the record by indicating the dates of exportation and the unit invoice prices for each individual item of the merchandise here involved.

> IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED that:

> 1. The three reappraisement appeals herein may be consolidated;

> 2. That the merchandise covered by reappraisement nos. 250843A and 250844A was exported from Malaya on December 15, 1951, and was freely offered for sale at the time of exportation herein to all purchasers in the principal markets of Malaya from whence exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, at a price equal to the following unit invoice prices in sterling converted into Canadian currency on the basis of 6.875 shillings sterling per each Canadian dollar, net packed;

> 

> That the merchandise covered by reappraisement number 250845A was exported from Malaya on November 18, 1951 and was freely offered for sale at the time of exportation herein to all purchasers in the principal markets of Malaya from whence exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, at a price equal to the following unit invoice prices in sterling converted into Canadian currency on the basis of 6.751 shillings sterling per each Canadian dollar, net packed:

> 

> *5103. That such or similar goods were not offered for sale in Malaya for home consumption at any higher price, and

> 4. That the instant cases are submitted on this stipulation of fact.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above-entitled case be resubmitted on this stipulation and the record heretofore made be stricken.

Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for determining the value of the linatex rubber here involved; that, in reappraisements 250843-A and 250844-A, such value is the unit invoice prices in sterling converted into Canadian currency on the basis of 6.875 shillings sterling per each Canadian dollar, net packed, as follows:

> Thickness Sterling rate per square foot Shillings Pence

> *%*inches 7 8

> */e*“ 2 *5}i*

> *H*“ 3 io *y2*

> *Vu “*9 6 *y2*

> *% “*11 *5x*

and, in reappraisement 250845-A, such value is the unit invoice prices in sterling converted into Canadian currency on the basis of 6.751 shillings sterling per each Canadian dollar, net packed, as follows:

> 

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

KAY A. MARTIN, § 

§ No. 312, 2015 

 Plaintiff-Below, § 

 Appellant, § 

§ Court Below: Superior Court 

v. § of the State of Delaware 

 § 

DOCTORS FOR EMERGENCY, § C.A. No. N12C-06-187 

SERVICES, P.A., and CHRISTIANA § 

CARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., § 

 § 

 Defendants-Below, § 

 Appellees. § 

Submitted: April 27, 2016 

Decided: April 29, 2016 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices. 

ORDER

 This 29th day of April, 2016, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 

and the record on appeal, and after oral argument, we find it evident that the final 

judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 

reasons stated in its transcript rulings dated February 26, 2014 and June 1, 2015. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the final judgment of the 

Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

 Justice